Pro-Trump ju­ror shows the back­bone of Amer­ica

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - BY CHARLES HURT

Cit­i­zen Paula Dun­can is the very spine of a suc­cess­ful Re­pub­lic. She is an in­formed, lawabid­ing cit­i­zen, deemed hon­est and trust­wor­thy by ad­ver­saries in court. She car­ries out her civic du­ties with de­vo­tion and in­tegrity. She is wor­thy of self-gover­nance.

Cit­i­zen Paula Dun­can will for­ever be a foot­note in his­tory as Ju­ror No. 0302 in the case of U.S. v. Paul J. Manafort Jr. tried in the Eastern Dis­trict of Vir­ginia, Judge T.S. El­lis III pre­sid­ing.

For nearly three weeks, Paula Dun­can heard a moun­tain of ev­i­dence in com­plex bank and tax fraud charges dat­ing back more than a decade.

A rea­son­able per­son might ask what took fed­eral in­ves­ti­ga­tors so long to make the case against Paul Manafort? For years, a greedy, vi­cious and dan­ger­ous tax cheat was walk­ing amongst us and the feds did noth­ing!

The answer is as sim­ple as it is ap­palling. The feds knew about at least some of these crimes, but chose not to pur­sue them. It was not un­til Mr. Manafort worked for Pres­i­dent Trump’s pres­i­den­tial cam­paign that the feds fi­nally de­cided to pur­sue jail time for Mr. Manafort.

Re­mem­ber that stun­ning dis­play of pros­e­cu­to­rial cor­rup­tion as you con­sider the hon­esty and de­cency of Cit­i­zen Paula Dun­can.

“I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty,” she told Fox News Chan­nel’s Shan­non Bream af­ter the jury found Mr. Manafort guilty of eight of 18 charges.

“I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty,” Cit­i­zen Paula Dun­can said. “But he was. And no one’s above the law.”

It was star­tling hon­esty, es­pe­cially in a day when our most pow­er­ful spy agen­cies and law en­force­ment bu­reaus have been weaponized by shameless and cor­rupt politi­cians to pun­ish po­lit­i­cal ene­mies.

Es­pe­cially in a day when the most pow­er­ful pros­e­cu­tor in the land pursues a po­lit­i­cally driven rogue “witch hunt” against a pres­i­dent elected to fi­nally put an end to the cor­rup­tion and dis­hon­esty that per­vades ev­ery dark cor­ner of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. No one is above the law, she said. But it was not Paula Dun­can’s self­less civic duty that the me­dia seized upon. In­stead, it was some­thing “de­plorable” about her. She, like many Amer­i­cans, is an ar­dent sup­porter of Don­ald Trump.

She drove back and forth for jury duty ev­ery day with a Make Amer­ica Great Again hat in her back seat.

Hope­less par­ti­sans hy­per­ven­ti­lat­ing on “so­cial me­dia” were aghast that such a per­son could have been se­lected to any jury, let alone one that was de­signed from Day One to smear Mr. Trump by as­so­ci­a­tion.

Even Judge El­lis ac­knowl­edged that the whole case would not have been brought ex­cept in zeal­ous pur­suit of Mr. Trump’s down­fall.

One com­menter won­dered pub­licly whether the virtue of find­ing Mr. Manafort guilty out­weighed the toxic sin of Cit­i­zen Paula Dun­can’s ad­mis­sion that she voted for Mr. Trump. Talk about a weak link in the body politic!

The Washington Post, mean­while, com­plained that while Paula Dun­can might have found Mr. Manafort guilty, she also ex­pressed her doubts about Run­away Pros­e­cu­tor Bob Mueller’s “witch hunt” cam­paign against Mr. Trump.

A “re­flex­ive nod to Trump­ism,” The Post groaned, ig­nor­ing Cit­i­zen Paula Dun­can’s flaw­less ser­vice to her coun­try.

In­deed, Paula Dun­can has more honor and in­tegrity in her small fin­ger than the en­tire ca­bal of po­lit­i­cal thieves com­bined.

It was star­tling hon­esty, es­pe­cially in a day when our most pow­er­ful spy agen­cies and law en­force­ment bu­reaus have been weaponized by shameless and cor­rupt politi­cians to pun­ish po­lit­i­cal ene­mies.

Con­tact Charles Hurt at [email protected]­ing­tontimes.com or on Twit­ter @charleshur­t.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.